Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "New Libertarian Manifesto"

See other formats

New Libertarian Manifesto 

by Samuel Edward Konkin III 

Koman Publishing, 1983 

Dedication to Chris R. Tame who told me, "Don't get it right, get it written!" 
Acknowledgments above all to 

• Ludwig Von Mises, 

• Murray N. Rothbard, 

• Robert LeFevre, 

• and their sources. 

1. st Printing by Anarchosamisdat Press - October 1980 

2. nd Printing by Koman Publishing Co. - February 1983 

Printed at Morningrise Printing 



I. Statism: Our Condition 

Libertarianism v coercion. The nature of the State. Constituents of libertarianism and 
diversity of Movement. The State strikes back: anti-principles. Ways and not-ways to Liberty. 
Betrayal and response, action over all. 

II. Agorism: Our Goal 

Consistency of ends, of means, of ends and means. Portrayal of agorist society. Restoration 
theory: restitution, time loss and apprehension cost; inherent advantages. Agorism defined. 
Objections countered. 

III. Counter-Economics: Our Means 

Micro activity and macro conseguences. Agorists: counter-economists with libertarian 
consciousness. The purpose of "Establishment" economics. Step by step backward from 
agorism to statism (for theoretical purposes). Black and grey markets: the unconscious agora. 
"Third," "Second," and "First" World Counter-Economic status and grossest examples. 
Counter-Economics in all fields of commerce even in North America, some exclusively 
counter-economic. Universality of Counter-Economics and reasons for it. Limitation of 
counter- economics and reasons. The role of the intelligentsia and Establishment media. 
Failure of counter-cultures and the key to success. Steps from statism to agorism and the risk 
of market protection. The fundamental principle of counter-economics. The reason for 
inevitable growth of agorist counter- economic sub-society. 

IV. Revolution: Our Strategy 

Self-aware counter-economics enough but some burn to do more - fight or support struggle. 
Combativity inadeguate without strategy. Phases of agorist growth decide appropriate 
strategy. Tactics that are always appropriate. New Libertarian Alliance as association for 
entrepreneuring Liberty. Libertarian creed is constraint of New Libertarian tactics. Phase 0: 
Zero-Density Agorist Society. Raise consciousness. Phase 1: Low-Density Agorist Society. 
Radical caucuses and Libertarian Left. Combat anti-principles. Anticipate crises of statism. 
Phase 2: Mid-Density, Small Condensation Agorist Society. The State to strike back but 
restrained by agorist contamination. NLA appears as its sustenance arrives. Accelerating 
revolutionary conditions. Phase 3: High- Density, Large Condensation Agorist Society. 
Permanent crisis of statism. Need to crush counter-economy grows as ability wanes. Anti- 
principles greatest threat. The State's final strike: Revolution. Strategy includes delaying 
tactics and counter-intelligence. Correct definition of (violent) Revolution. Phase 4: Agorist 
Society with Statist Impurities. Collapse of the State and simultaneous dissolution of NLA. 

V. Action: Our Tactics 

Some tactics listed. Tactics must be discovered and applied in context. Activist = 
entrepreneur. Where we are not (then). Opportunity from collapse of statist Left. Opportunity 
from premature party sell-out. The concluding challenge. New Libertarian pledge and 
rousing finish: Agora, Anarchy, Action! 

Praise for the New Libertarian Manifesto: 

"Konkin's writings are to be welcomed. Because we need a lot more 
polycentrism in the movement. Because he shakes up Partyarchs who tend 
to fall into unthinking complacency. And especially because he cares deeply 
about liberty and can read-and-write, gualities which seem to be going out 
of style in the libertarian movement." 

Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D. 

"I am delighted to see the Konkin Manifesto and can applaud it in general 
for its position respecting consistency, objective and method... I believe it 
will have and deserves to have a compelling influences upon members of the 
'old' left." 

Robert LeFevre 

Preface to the First Edition 

The basic form of new Libertarianism arose during my struggle with the Libertarian Party 
during its formation in 1973, and Counter-Economics was first put forward to the public at 
the Free Enterprise Forum in Los Angeles in February 1974. New Libertarianism has been 
propagated within and without the libertarian movement and its journals, most notably New 
Libertarian magazine, since then. 

More importantly, the activism prescribed herein (especially Counter-Economics) has been 
practiced by the author and his closest allies since 1975. Several "anarchovillages" of New 
Libertarians have formed and reformed. 

Just once, wouldn't you like to read a manifesto that's been practiced before it's preached? I 
wanted to. 

And I did it. 

Samuel Edward Konkin III October 1980 

Preface to the Second Edition 

An agorist publication ought to be judged most severely in the free marketplace. Sure 
enough, the first edition of New Libertarian Manifesto has been sold out and a second 
edition, taken up by a fresh entrepreneur looking for profit with his ideology, is with you, the 
reader. The market's judgement, to my pleasant surprise, is that NLM is the most successful 
of my many publications. 

In the realm of ideas, two years is a fairly short time. Nevertheless, attacks on NLM have 
begun in Left-Center Libertarian publications and one such student network newsletter 
berated errant chapters for switching allegiance to "that flake, Konkin" only last month. 
Essays and articles on Counter-Economics and agorism appear in more and more non-Left (or 
non-agorist - yet) libertarian publications. 

A truly encouraging sign is the emergence of many Counter-Economic entrepreneurs in the 
Southern California area (and a few scattered around North America and even Europe) who 
embrace and distribute NLM. An agorist "industrial park" has been condensing guietly in 
Orange County between these two editions. 

This continuing gratification is not idly enjoyed. It has inspired the author to continue the 
dialogue in two issues of a theoretical journal based on NLM, the writing of Counter- 
Economics (see footnote 3, chapter III), and the planning of a theoretical magnum opus, as 
Das Capital was to the Communist Manifesto, undoubtedly to be titled Agorism. 

As for continuing to practice what I preach and expanding on the practice, I may add to the 
end of the First Preface... 

And I'm still doing it. 

Samuel Edward Konkin III 
February 1 983 

Statism: Our Condition 

We are coerced by our fellow human beings. Since they have the ability to choose to 
do otherwise, our condition need not be thus. Coercion is immoral, inefficient and 
unnecessary for human life and fulfillment. Those who wish to be supine as their 
neighbors prey on them are free to so choose; this manifesto is for those who choose 
otherwise: to fight back. 

To combat coercion, one must understand it. More importantly, one must understand 
what one is fighting for as much as what one is fighting against. Blind reaction goes 
in all directions negative to the source of oppression and disperses opportunity; 
pursuit of a common goal focuses the opponents and allows formation of coherent 
strategy and tactics. 

Diffuse coercion is optimally handled by local, immediate self-defense. Though the 
market may develop larger-scale businesses for protection and restoration, random 
threats of violence can only be dealt with roots of mysticism and delusions planted 
deep in the victims' thinking, reguires a grand strategy and a cataclysmic point of 
historical singularity: Revolution. 

Such an institution of coercion, centralizing immorality, directing theft and murder, 
and co-ordinating oppression on a scale inconceivable by random criminality exists. It 
is the Mob of mobs. Gang of gangs. Conspiracy of conspiracies. It has murdered more 
people in a few recent years than all the deaths in history before that time; it has 
stolen in a few recent years more than all the wealth produced in history to that time; 
it has deluded - for its survival - more minds in a few recent years than all the 
irrationality of history to that time. Our Enemy, The State. [2] 

In the 20th Century alone, war has murdered more than all previous deaths; taxes 
and inflation have stolen more than all wealth previously produced; and the political 
lies, propaganda, and above all, "Education" have twisted more minds than all the 
superstition prior; yet through all the deliberate confusion and obfuscation, the 
thread of reason has developed fibers of resistance to be woven into the rope of 
execution for the State: Libertarianism. 

Where the State divides and conguers its opposition. Libertarianism unites and 
liberates. Where the State beclouds. Libertarianism clarifies; where the State 
conceals. Libertarianism uncovers; where the State pardons. Libertarianism accuses. 

Libertarianism elaborates an entire philosophy from one simple premise: initiatory 
violence or its threat (coercion) is wrong (immoral, evil, bad, supremely impractical, 
etc) and is forbidden; nothing else is. [3] 

Libertarianism, as developed to this point, discovered the problem and defined the 
solution: the State vs the Market. The Market is the sum of all voluntary human 
action. [4] If one acts non-coercively, one is part of the Market. Thus did Economics 
become part of Libertarianism. 

Libertarianism investigated the nature of man to explain his rights deriving from non- 
coercion. It immediately followed that man (woman, child, Martian, etc.) had an 
absolute right to this life and other property - and no other. Thus did Objective 
philosophy become part of Libertarianism. 

Libertarianism asked why society was not libertarian now and found the State, its 
ruling class, its camouflage, and the heroic historians striving to reveal the truth. 

Thus did Revisionist History become part of Libertarianism. 

Psychology, especially as developed by Thomas Szasz as counter-psychology, was 
embraced by libertarians seeking to free themselves from both state restraint and 

Seeking an art form to express the horror potential of the State and extrapolate the 
many possibilities of liberty. Libertarianism found Science Fiction already in the field. 

From the political, economic, philosophical, psychological, historical and artistic 
realms the partisans of liberty saw a whole, integrating their resistance with others 
elsewhere, and they came together as their consciousness became aware. Thus did 
Libertarians become a Movement. The Libertarian Movement looked around and saw 
the challenge: everywhere. Our Enemy, The State, from the ocean's depth past arid 
outposts to the lunar surface in every land, people, tribe, nation - and individual mind. 
Some sought immediate alliance with other opponents of the power elite to overthrow 
the State's present rulers. [5] Some sought immediate confrontation with the State's 
agents. [6] Some pursued collaboration with those in power who offered less 
oppression for votes. [7] And some dug in for long-term enlightenment of the 
populace to build and develop the Movement. [8] Everywhere, a Libertarian Alliance 
of activists sprang up. [9] 

The State's Higher Circles were not about to yield their plunder and restore property 
to their victims at the first sign of opposition. The first counter- attack came from 
anti-principles already planted by the corrupt Intellectual Caste: Defeatism, 
Retreatism, Minarchy, Collaborationism, Gradualism, Monocentris and Reformism - 
including accepting State office to "improve" Statism! All of these anti-principles 
(deviations, heresies, self-destructive contradictory tenets, etc.) will be dealt with 
later. Worst of all is Partyarchy, the anti-concept of pursuing libertarian ends through 
statist means, especially political parties. 

A "Libertarian" Party was the second counter-attack of the State unleased on the 
fledgling Libertarians, first as a ludicrous oxymoron [10], then as an invading army. 
[ 11 ] 

The third counter-attack was an attempt by one of the ten richest capitalists in the 
United States to buy the major Libertarian institutions - not just the Party - and run 
the movement as other plutocrats run all the other political parties in capitalist 
states. [12] 

The degree of success those statist counter-attacks had in corrupting libertarianism 
led to a splintering of the Movement's "Left" and the despairing paralyzation of 
others. As disillusionment grew with "Libertarianism," the disillusioned sought 
answers to this new problem: the State within as well as the State without. How do 
we avoid being used by the State and its power elite? That is, they asked, how can we 
avoid deviations from the path of liberty when we know there are more than one? The 
market has many paths to production and consumption of a product, and none are 
perfectly predictable. So even if one tells us how to get from here (statism) to there 
(liberty), how do we know that's the best way? 

Already some are dredging up the old strategies of movements long dead with other 
goals. New paths are indeed being offered - back to the State. [13] 

Betrayal, inadvertent or planned, continues. It need not. 

While no one can predict the seguence of steps which will unerringly achieve a free 
society for free-willed individuals, one can eliminate in one slash all those which will 
not advance Liberty, and applying the principles of the Market unwaveringly will map 
out a terrain to travel. There is no One Way, one straight line graph to Liberty, to be 
sure. But there is a family of graphs, a Space filled with lines, which will take the 
libertarian to his goal of the free society, and that Space can be described. 

Once the goal is fixed and the paths discovered, only the Action of the individual to go 
from here to there remains. Above all else, this manifesto calls for that Action. [14] 


[1] I am indebted to Robert LeFevre for this insight, though we draw differing 

[2] Thank you, Albert J. Nock, for that phrase. 

[3] Modern Libertarianism is best explained by Murray Rothbard in For A New 
Liberty, which, regardless how recent the edition, is always a year or more out of 
date. Recommending even the best writing on libertarianism is like recommending 
one song to explain music in all its forms. 

[4] Thank you, Ludwig Von Mises. 

[5] Radical Libertarian Alliance, 1968-71 

[6] Student Libertarian Action Movement, 1968-72, later revived briefly as a proto- 

[7] Citizens for a Restructured Republic, 1972, made up of RLA members 
disillusioned with revolution. 

[8] Society for Individual Liberty 1969- . Also Rampart College (now defunct) and the 
Foundation for Economic Education and Free Enterprise Institute all who were 
around before the libertarian population explosion of 1969. 

[9] Most importantly, the California Libertarian Alliance, 1969-73. The name is still 
kept alive for sponsorship of conferences and in the United Kingdom. 

[10] The first "Libertarian" Party was set up by Gabriel Aguilar and Ed Butler in 
California in 1970, as a hollow shell to gain media access. (Aguilar, a Galambosian, 
was staunchly anti-political.) Even Nolan's "L"P was mocked and scorned by such as 
Murray Rothbard in the first year of its existence. 

[11] The "Libertarian" Party which eventually organized nationally and ran John 
Hospers and Toni Nathan for President and Vice-President in 1972 was first 
organized by David and Susan Nolan in December 1971 in Colorado. D. Nolan was a 
Massachusetts YAFer who had broken with YAF back in 1967 and missed the 1969 
climax in St. Louis. He remained conservative and minarchist right up to this first 

Although the Nolans were rather innocent, and other early organizations and 
candidates often so, the debate on the "Party Question" began immediately. New 
Libertarian Notes attacked the "L"P concept in Spring of 1972 and ran a debate 
between Nolan and Konkin just before the election (NLN 15). 

By the 1980 presidential campaign, the Nolans had broken with the "L"P leadership 
of Ed Crane and his candidate Ed Clark who ran a high-powered, high-financed, 
traditional vote-chasing and platform-trimming campaign. 

[12] Charles G. Koch, Wichita oil billionaire, through his relatives, foundations, 
institutes and centers bought or set up or "bought out" the following from 1976-1979: 
Murray Rothbard and his Libertarian Forum; Libertarian Review (from Robert 
Kephart) edited by Roy. A. Childs; Students for a Libertarian Society (SLS) run by 
Milton Mueller; Center for Libertarian Studies (Rothbard-leaning) and Joe Peden; 
Inguiry edited by Williamson Evers; Cato Institute; and various Koch Funds, 
Foundations and Institutes. Named the "Kochtopus" in New Libertarian 1 (February, 
1978), it was first attacked in print by Edith Efron in the conservative-libertarian 
publication Reason, along with allegations of an "anarchist" conspiracy. The 
Movement of the Libertarian Left cut away from Efron's anti-anarchist ravings and 
rushed to support her on her key revelation of the growth of monocentrism in the 

In 1979, the Kochtopus took control of the National Libertarian Party at the Los 
Angeles convention. David Koch, Charles' brother, openly bought the VP nomination 
for $500,000. 

[13] Murray Rothbard broke with the Kochtopus soon after the '79 LP Convention and 
most of his close allies were purged such as Williamson Evers of Inguiry. CLS was cut 
off from Koch funding. The Libertarian Forum began attacking Koch. Rothbard and 
young Justin Raimondo set up a new "radical" caucus of the LP (the first one, 1972- 
74, was run by progenitors of NLA as a recruiting tactic and to destroy the Party from 
within) . 

Although Rothbard was moved to ask "Is Sam Konkin right?" in his July 1980 speech 
to a RC dinner in Orange County, the RC strategy is to reform the LP using New Left 
and neo-Marxist tactics. 

[14] I hope subseguent editions may omit this note, but in the present historical 
context it is vital to point out that Libertarianism is not specifically for the most 
"advanced" or enlightened elements in North America, perhaps typified by the young, 
white, highly-read computer consultant, egually feminist mate (and 1/2 children). 

Only the freest market can raise the "Second" and "Third World" from grinding 
poverty and self-destructive superstition. Compulsory attempts to critically raise 
production standards and associated cultural understanding have caused backlash 

and regression: e.g. Iran and Afghanistan. Mostly, the State has engaged in 
deliberate repression of self-improvement. 

Quasi-free markets, such as the free ports of Hong Kong, Singapore, and Shanghai 
(earlier), attracted floods of upwardly-mobile, highly motivated entrepreneurs. The 
incredibly highly developed black market of Burma already runs the entire economy 
and needs only a libertarian awareness to oust Ne Win and the Army and accelerated 
trade to annihilate poverty almost overnight. 

Similar observations are possible about developed black markets and tolerated semi- 
free markets in the "Second World" of Soviet occupation such as Armenia, Georgia 
and the Russian counter-economy. 

[15] Note to Second Edition: The above note is still, sadly enough, needed. 

Ago r ism: Our Goal 

The basic principle which leads a libertarian from statism to his free society is the 
same which the founders of libertarianism used to discover the theory itself. That 
principle is consistency. Thus, the consistent application of the theory of 
libertarianism to every action the individual libertarian takes creates the libertarian 

Many thinkers have expressed the need for consistency between means and ends and 
not all were libertarians. Ironically, many statists have claimed inconsistency between 
laudable ends and contemptible means; yet when their true ends of greater power 
and oppression were understood, their means are found to be quite consistent. It is 
part of the statist mystique to confuse the necessity of ends-means consistency; it is 
thus the most crucial activity of the libertarian theorist to expose inconsistencies. 
Many theorists have done to admirably; but we have attempted and most failed to 
describe the consistent means and ends combination of libertarianism. [1] 

Whether or not this manifesto is itself correct can be determined by the same 
principle. If consistency fails, then all within is meaningless; in fact, language is then 
gibberish and existence a fraud. This cannot be over- emphasized. Should an 
inconsistency be discovered in these pages, then the consistent reformulation is New 
Libertarianism, not what has been found in error. New Libertarianism (agorism) 
cannot be discredited without Liberty or Reality (or both) being discredited, only an 
incorrect formulation. 

Let us begin by sighting our goal. What does a free society look like, or at least a 
society as free as we can hope to achieve with our present understanding? [2] 

Undoubtedly the freest society yet envisioned is that of Robert LeFevre. All relations 
between people are voluntary exchanges - a free market. No one will injure another 
or trespass in any way. 

Of course, a lot more than statism would be to be eliminated from individual 
consciousness for his society to exist. Most damaging of all to this perfectly free 
society is its lack of a mechanism of correction. [3] All it takes is a handful of 
practitioners of coercion who enjoy their ill-gotten plunder in enough company to 
sustain them - and freedom is dead. Even if all are living free, one "bite of the apple," 
one throwback, reading old history or rediscovering evil on his own, will "unfree" the 
perfect society. 

The next-best-thing to a free society is the Libertarian society. Eternal vigilance is the 
price of Liberty (Thomas Jefferson) and it may be possible to have a small number of 
individuals in the marketplace ready to defend against sporadic aggression. Or large 
numbers may retain sufficient knowledge and ability to use that knowledge of basic 
self-defense to deter random attacks (the coercer never knowing who might be well 
versed in defense) and eliminate the profitability of systematic violence initiation. 

Even so, there remain two problems inordinately difficult for this system of "Anarchy 
with spontaneous defense." First is the problem of defending those who are 
noticeably defenseless. This can be reduced by advanced technology to people who 
are quadriplegic morons (assuming that won't be solved by sufficient technology) and 
very young children who require constant attention anyways. Then there are those 

who for a brief time go defenseless and the even rarer cases of those who are 
overwhelmed by violence initiators wishing to test their skills against a probably 
weaker foe. (The last is most rare simply because of the high risk and low material 
return on investment.) 

Those who need not - and should not - be defended are those who consciously choose 
not to be: pacifists. LeFevre and his disciples need never fear some Libertarian will 
use methods they find repugnant to defend them. (Perhaps they can wear a "dove" 
button for guick recognitions?) 

Far more important is what to do with the violence initiator after defense. The case in 
which one's property is violated successfully and one is not there to protect it comes 
readily to mind. And finally, though actually a special case of the above, is the 
possibility of fraud and other forms of contract violation. [4] 

These cases may be settled by the primitive "shoot-out" or socially - that is, through 
the intervention of a third party who has no vested interest in either of the two 
parties to the dispute. This case is the fundamental problem of society. [5] 

Any attempts to force a solution against the wishes to both parties violates 
Libertarian principle. So a "shoot-out" involving no risk to third parties is acceptable - 
but hardly profitable or efficient or even civilized (aesthetically pleasing) save to a 
few cultists. 

The solution then reguires a judge, "Fair Witness" or arbitrator. Once an arbitrator to 
a dispute or judge of an aggression has performed judgment and communicated the 
decision, enforcement may be reguired. (Pacifists may choose arbitration without 
enforcement, by the way.) 

The following market system has been proposed by Rothbard, Linda and Morris 
Tannehill, and others; it need not be definitive and may be improved by advances in 
theory and technology (as this author has already done). At this stage of history, it 
seems optimal and is presented here as the beginning working model. 

First, always leaving out these who choose not to participate, one insures oneself 
against aggression or theft. One can even assign a value to one's life in ase of murder 
(or inadvertent manslaughter) which may range from the taking of the violence- 
initiator's life to taking replaceable organs (technology willing) to restore life to the 
payment to a foundation to continue one's life's work. What is crucial here is that the 
victim assigns the value to his life, body and property before the mishap. 
(Exchangeable goods may simply be replaced at market rate. See below.) 

A finds property missing and reports it to the insurance company IA. IA either 
through another division or through another division or through a separate detective 
agency (D) investigates. IA promptly replaces the object to A so that loss of use of 
good is minimized. [6] D Now may fail to discover the missing property. In that case, 
the loss to IA is covered by the premiums paid for the insurance. Note well that in 
order to keep premiums low and competitive, IA has a strong incentive to maximize 
retrieval of stolen or lost goods. (One could wax eloguent for volumes on the lack of 
such incentive for monopoly detection systems such as State police forces, and their 
horrendous social cost.) 

IF D does discover the goods, say in B's possession, and B freely returns them 
(perhaps induced by reward), the case is closed. Only if B claims property right in the 
object also claimed by A does conflict arise. 

B has insurance company IB which may perform its own independent investigation 
and convince IA that D erred. Failing that, IA and IB are now in conflict. At this point, 
the standard objections to market anarchy have been brought up that the "war" 
between A and B has been enlarged to include large insurance companies which may 
have sizeable protection divisions or contracts with protection companies (PA and 
PB). But wherein lies the incentive for IA and IB to use violence and destroy not only 
its competitor's assets but surely at least some of its own? They have even less 
incentive in a market society long established; the companies have specialists and 
capital tied up in defense. Any company investigating in offense would become highly 
suspect and surely lose customers in a predominantly Libertarian society (which is 
what is under discussion). 

Very cheaply and profitably, IA and IB can simply pay and arbitration company to 
settle the dispute, presenting their respective claims and evidence. If B has rightful 
claim, IA drops the case, taking its small lose (compared to war!) and has excellent 
incentive to improve its investigation. If A has rightful claim, the reverse is now true 
for IB. 

Only at this point, when the matter has been fully contested, investigated and judged, 
and still B refuses to relinguish the stolen property, would violence occur. (B may 
have only been bothered so far as being notified of IB's defense on B's behalf, and B 
may have chosen to ignore it; no subpoena could be issued until after conviction.) But 
PB and IB step aside and B must now face a competent, efficient team of specialists in 
recovery of stolen property. Even if B is near-mad in his resistance at this point, he 
would probably be neutralized with minimum fuss by a market agency eager for a 
good public image and more customers - including B himself some day. Above all, PA 
must act so as not to invoke anyone else or harm other's property. 

B or IB is now liable for restoration. This can be divided into three parts: restitution, 
time preference, and apprehension. 

Restitution is the return of the original good or its market eguivalent. This could be 
applied even to parts of the human body or the value set on one's life. 

Time preference is the restitution of the time-use lose and is easily determined by the 
market rate of interest which IA had to pay to immediately restore A's property. 

Apprehension is the sum of the cost of investigation, detection, arbitration and 
enforcement. Note how well the market works to give B a high incentive to restore 
the loot guickly to minimize apprehension cost (exactly the opposite to most statist 
systems) and to minimize interest accrued. 

Finally, note all the built-in incentives for swift, efficient justice and restoration with a 
minimum of fuss and violence. Contrast this with all other systems in operation; note 
as well that in parts all this system has been tried successfully throughout history. 
Only the whole is new and exclusive to Libertarian Theory. 

This model of restoration has been spelled out so specifically, even though it may be 

improved and developed, because it solves the only social problem involving any 
violence whatsoever. The rest of this Libertarian society can be best pictured by 
imaginative science fiction authors with a good grounding in praxeology (Mises 1 term 
for the study of human action, especially, but not only, economics.) 

Some hallmarks of this society - libertarian in theory and free-market in practice, 
called agorist, from the Greek agora, meaning "open marketplace" - are rapid 
innovations in science, technology, communication, transportation, production and 
distribution. A complementary case can be made for rapid innovation and 
development in the arts and humanities to keep up with the more material progress; 
also, such non-material progress would be likely because of total liberty in all forms 
of non-violent artistic expression and ever-more rapid and complete communication of 
it to willing recipients. The libertarian literature extolling these benefits of freedom is 
already a large body and growing rapidly. 

One must conclude this description of restoration theory by dealing with some of the 
arcane objections to it. Most of these reduce to challenges to ascribing value to 
violated goods or persons. Letting the impersonal market and the victim decide 
seems most fair to both victim and aggressor. 

The latter point offense some who feel punishment is reguired for evil in thought; 
reversibility of deed is not enough for them. [7] 

Though none of them has come up with a moral basis for punishment, Rothbard and 
David Friedman in particular argue for the economic necessity of deterrence. They 
argue that any percentage of apprehension less than 100% allows a small probability 
of success; hence, a "rational criminal" may choose to take the risk for his gain. Thus 
additional deterrence must be added in the form of punishment. That this also will 
decrease the incentive for the aggressor to turn himself in and thus lower further the 
rate of apprehension is not considered, or perhaps the punishment is to be escalated 
at ever-faster rates to beat the accelerating rate of evasion. As this is written, the 
lowest rate of evasion from state-defined crimes is 80%; most criminals have better 
than 90% chance of not being caught. This is within a punishment- rehabilitation 
system where no restoration occurs (the victim being further plundered by taxation to 
support the penal system) and the market is banished. Small wonder there is a 
thriving "red market" in non-State violence initiation! 

Even so, this criticism of agorist restoration fails to note that there is an "entropy" 
factor. The potential aggressor must put the gain of the object of theft against the 
loss of the object plus interest plus apprehension cost. It is true that if he turns 
himself in immediately, the latter two are minimal - but so are the costs to the victim 
and insurer. 

Not only is agorist restoration happily deterrent in a reciprocal relation with 
compliance, but the market cost of the apprehension factor allows a precise 
guantifiable measurement of the social cost of coercion in society. No other proposed 
system known to this time does that. As most libertarians have been saying, freedom 

Nowhere in agorist restoration theory do the thoughts of the aggressor enter into the 
picture. The aggressor is assumed only to be a human actor and responsible for his 
actions. Furthermore, what business is it of anyone else what anyone thinks? What is 

relevant is what the aggressor does. Thought is not action; in thought, at least, 
anarchy remains absolute. [8] 

If you sit up in shock to find I have crashed through your picture window, and then 
made sure everyone will continue to live, you don't particularly care if I tripped and 
fell through while walking by or I engaged in some act of irrational anger jumping 
through or even whether it was a premeditated plan to distract protectors across the 
street from noticing a bank heist. What you want is your window back pronto (and the 
mess cleared). What I think is irrelevant to your restoration. In fact, it can be easily 
demonstrated that even the smallest expenditure of energy on this subject is pure 
waste. Motivation - or suspected motivation, which is all we can know [8] - may be 
relevant to detection and even to prove plausibility of the aggressor's action to an 
arbitrator if there may be two egually probably suspects, but all that matters for 
justice - as a libertarian sees is - is that the victim has been restored to a condition as 
identical as possible to pre-harm. Let God or conscience punish "guilty thoughts." [9] 

Another objection raised concerns what will be done about violence initiators who 
have paid their debt (to the individual, not "society"), and are "free" to try again - with 
greater experience. What about recidivism, so prevalent in statist society? 

Of course, once one is marked as an aggressor, one will probably be watched more 
closely and thought of first when a similar crime is committed. And while work-camps 
may be used to repay restitution in a few extreme cases, most aggressors will be 
allowed to work in relative freedom on bond. Thus no "institutions of criminal higher 
learning" like prisons will be around to educate and encourage aggression. 

The distinguishing characteristic of a highly efficient and accurate system of 
judgment and protection will be that it will occupy a negligible fraction of an 
individual's time, thought or money. One can then argue that we have not portrayed 
99% of the agorist society at all. What about elimination of self-destruction (which 
Libertarianism does not deal with), space exploration and colonization, life extension, 
intelligence increase, interpersonal relations and aesthetic variations? All that really 
can and need be said is that where present-man must spend half or more of his time 
and energy serving or resisting the State, that time-energy (physicist definition of 
action) will be usable for all other aspects of self-improvement and harnessing of 
nature. It takes a cynical view of humanity indeed to imagine anything but a richer, 
happier society. 

This then is a sketch of our goal and detailed picture or enlarged focus on the aspect 
of justice and protection. We have the "here" and the "there." Now for the path - 


[1] To cite the most spectacular so far: 

o Murray Rothbard will use any past political strategy to further libertarianism, 
falling back on ever more radical ones when the previously tried ones fail. 

o Robert LeFevre advocates a purity of thought and deed in each individual which 
this author and may other find inspiring. But he holds back from describing a 
complete strategy resulting from these personal tactics, partially due to a fear of 
being charged with prescribing as well as describing. This author has no such fear. 
LeFevre's pacifism also dilutes the attraction of his libertarian tactics, probably far 
more than deserved. 

o Andrew J. Galambos advocates a fairly counter-economic position (see the next 
chapter) but positively drives away recruits by his anti-movement stance and his 
"secret society" organization tactic. His "primary property" deviationism, like 
LeFevre's pacifism, probably also detracts from the rest of his theory more than is 

o Harry Brown's 'How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World' is an immensely popular 
guide to personal liberation. Having been influenced by Rothbard, LeFevre and 
Galambos, Browne fairly correctly, if superficially, maps out valid tactics for the 
individual to survive and prosper in a statist society. He offers no overall strategy, 
and his technigues would break down in an advanced counter-economic system as it 
nears the free society. 

o A deviation with no particular spokesperson but associated largely with the 
Libertarian Connection is the idea of achieving freedom by outflanking the State with 
technology. This seems to have plausible validity in the recent case of the U.S. State 
deciding not to regulate the explosive-growth information industry. But if fails to take 
into account the ingenuity of those who will keep statism around as long as people 
demand it. 

[2] When our understanding increases, one assumes we can achieve a freer society. 

[3] In The Great Explosion, SF writer Eric Frank Russell posits a society close to that 
envisioned by LeFevre. The pacifist Gands did have a correction mechanism for 
occasionally aberrant individuals - the "Idle Jack" cases. Unfortunately, shunning 
would fail the moment the coercers reached a "critical number" to form a supportive, 
self-sustaining sub-society. That they could is obvious - they have! 

[4] The Mises-Rothbard position that fraud and failure to fulfill contract (the latter 
may be taken care of by clauses in the contract, of course) is itself theft: of future 
goods. The basis of contract is the transfer of present goods (consideration here and 
now) for future goods (consideration there and then). 

All theft is violence initiation, either the use of force to take property away 
involuntarily or to prevent receipt of goods or return of payment for those goods 
which were freely transferred by agreement. 

[5] Society, as Mises points out, exists because of the advantages of division of labor. 
By specializing in different steps of production, individuals find total wealth produced 
greater than by their individual efforts. 

[6] At this point we must introduce Mises' concept of time preference. Future goods 
are always discounted relative to present goods because of the use-time foregone. 
While individual values of time preference vary, those with high time-preference can 
borrow from those with lower time-preference since the high-preferers will pay more 

to the low-preferers than the value they have foregone. The point where all these 
transactions of time preference clear on the free market defines the basic or 
originary rate of interest for all loans and capital investment. 

[7] Murray Rothbard takes the most moderate position here: he advocates double 
restoration; that is, not only must the aggressor restore the victim to prior unharmed 
condition (as much as possible), but must become himself a victim for an eguivalent 
amount! Not only does this doubling seem arbitrary but nowhere does Rothbard 
provide a moral basis for punishment, let along a "moral calculus" (a la Bentham). 

Others are far worse in demanding ever-greater plunder of the apprehended 
aggressor, making it probable that only the grossest fool who happened to err 
momentarily would ever turn himself in, and who would rather attempt to cost his 
pursuers dearly. Many neo-Randists would shoot a child for purloining a candy (Gary 
Greenberg, for instance); others have chained teenagers to their beds to work off 
trivial trespasses. 

This is yet brushing the tip of horror. Far greater a travesty of justice is proposed by 
those who do not wish to restitute or even mildly punish but to rehabilitate the 
violence-initiator. While some of the more enlightened among the rehabilitators 
would accept concurrent working off of restitution debt, they would seize upon the 
victim's delegation of right of self-defense (the basis of all legal action) to incarcerate 
and brainwash the now helpless apprehended aggressor. 

Not content with punishing the person, scourging the body, and perhaps even the 
relative mercy of cruel physical torture, rehabilitators seek the destruction of values 
and motivation, that is, the annihilation of the Ego. In more florid but well-deserved 
language they wish to devour the soul of the apprehended aggressor! 

[8] Should telepathy be discovered and practically achievable, it may be at least then 
possible to investigate motive and intent; still the only use in an agorist system would 
be for mercy pleas - mercy at the further expense of the victim. This footnote is also 
relevant to the following paragraph which is why it is twice denoted. 

[9] A good guestion is where did "punishment" ever get started? The concept is 
applicable only to slaves who have nothing else to lose but lack of pain, to the utterly 
worthless if any exist, and to very young children who are incapable of paying for 
restoration and are considered inadeguately responsible to incur debt. Of course, a 
primitive economy generally had far too many problems with rationality and 
technology to provide much trustworthy detection and measurement of value. 

Still, some primitive societies such as the Irish, Icelandic and Ibo introduced systems 
of repayment to meliorate vengeance - and promptly evolved to guasi-anarchies. 

Counter- Economics: Our Means 

Having detailed our past and statist present and glimpsed a credible view of a far 
better society achievable with present understanding and technology - no change in 
human nature needed - we come to the critical part of the manifesto: how do we get 
from here to there? The answer breaks into two naturally - or maybe unnaturally. 
Without a State, the differentiation into micro (manipulation of an individual by 
himself in his environment - including the market) and the macro (manipulation of 
collectives) would be at best an interesting statistical exercise with some small 
reference to marketing agencies. Even so, a person with a highly sophisticated 
decency may wish to understand the social conseguences of his or her acts even if 
they harm no other. 

With a State tainting every act and befouling our minds with unearned guilt, it 
becomes extremely important to understand the social conseguences of our acts. For 
example, if we fail to pay at tax and get away with it, who is hurt: us? The State? 
Innocents? Libertarian analysis shows us that the State is responsible for any damage 
to innocents it alleges the "selfish tax-evader" has incurred; and the "services" the 
State "provides" us are illusory. But even so, there must be more than lonely 
resistance cleverly concealed or "dropping out?" If a political party or revolutionary 
army is inappropriate and self-defeating for libertarian goals, what collective action 
works? The answer is agorism. 

It is possible, practical, and even profitable to entrepreneur large collections of 
humanity from statist society to the agora. This is, in the deepest sense, true 
revolutionary activity and will be covered in the next chapter. But to understand this 
macro answer, we must first outline the micro answer. [1] 

The function of the pseudo-science of Establishment economics, even more than 
making predictions (like the Imperial Roman augurers) for the ruling class, is to 
mystify and confuse the ruled class as to where their wealth is going and how it is 
taken. An explanation of how people keep their wealth and property from the State is 
then Counter-Establishment economics, or Counter- Economics [2] for short. The 
actual practice of human actions that evade, avoid and defy the State is counter- 
economic activity, but in the same sloppy way "economics" refers to both the science 
and what it studies. Counter- Economics will undoubtedly be used. Since this writing 
is Counter-Economic theory itself, what will be referred to as Counter-Economics is 
the practice. 

Mapping and describing all or even a significantly useful part of Counter- Economics 
will reguire at least a full volume itself. [3] Just enough will be sketched here to 
provide understanding for the rest of the manifesto. 

Going from an agorist society to a statist one should be uphill work, eguivalent to a 
path of high negative entropy in physics. After all, once one is living in and 
understanding a well-run free society, why would one wish to return to systematic 
coercion, plunder, and anxiety? Spreading ignorance and irrationality among the 
knowledgeable and rational is difficult; mystifying that which is already clearly 
understood is nearly impossible. The agorist society should be fairly stable relative to 
decadence, though highly open to improvement. 

Let us run backwards in time, like running a film backward, from the agorist society 

to the present statist society. What would we expect to see? 

Pockets of statism, mostly contiguous in territory, since the State requires regional 
monopolies, would first appear. The remaining victims are becoming more and more 
aware of the wonderful free world around them and "evaporating" from these 
pockets. Large syndicates of market protection agencies are containing the State by 
defending those who have signed up for protection- insurance. Most importantly, 
those outside the statist pockets or sub- societies are enjoying an agorist society save 
for a higher cost of insurance premiums and some care as to where they travel. The 
agorists could co-exist with statists at this point, maintaining an isolationist "foreign 
policy" since the costs of invasion of statist sub-societies and liberation would be 
higher than immediate returns (unless the State launches an all-out last aggression), 
but there is no real reason to imagine the remaining victims will choose to remain 
oppressed when the libertarian alternative is so visible and accessible. The State's 
areas are like a super-saturated solution ready to precipitate anarchy. 

Run backward another step and we find the situation reversed. We find larger sectors 
of society under Statism and smaller ones living as agorically as possible. However, 
there is one visible difference: the agorists need not be territorially contiguous. They 
can live anywhere, though they will tend to associate with their fellow agorists not 
only for social reinforcement but for ease and profitability of trade. It's always safer 
and more profitable to deal with more trustworthy customers and suppliers. The 
tendency is for greater association among more agorist individuals and for 
dissociation with more statist elements. (This tendency is not only theoretically 
strong; it already exists in embryonic practice today.) Some easily defendable 
territories, perhaps in space or islands in the ocean (or under the ocean) or big-city 
"ghettos" may be almost entirely agorist, where the State is impotent to crush them. 
But most agorists will live within statist-claimed areas. 

There will be a spectrum of the degree of agorism in most individuals, as there is 
today, with a few benefiting from the State being highly statist, a few fully conscious 
of the agorist alternative and competent as living free to the hilt, and the rest in the 
middle with varying degrees of confusion. 

Finally, we step back to where only a handful understand agorism, the vast majority 
perceiving illusory gains from the existence of the State or unable to perceive an 
alternative, and the statists themselves: the government apparatus and the class 
defined by receiving a new gain from the State's intervention in the Market. [4] 

This is a description of our present society. We are "home." 

Before we reverse course and describe the path from statism to agorism, let us look 
around at our present society with our newly-acquired agorist perception. Much as a 
traveller who returns home and sees things in a new light from what he or she has 
learned from foreign lands and ways of life, we may gain new insights on our present 

Besides a few enlightened New Libertarians tolerated in the more liberal statist areas 
on the globe ("toleration" exists to the degree of libertarian contamination of statism), 
we now perceive something else: large numbers of people who are acting in an 
agorist manner with little understanding of any theory but who are induced by 
material gain to evade, avoid, or defy the State. Surely they are a hopeful potential? 

In the Soviet Union, a bastion of arch-statism and a nearly totally collapsed "official" 
economy, a giant black market provides the Russians, Armenian, Ukrainian and 
others with everything from food to television repair to official papers and favors 
from the ruling class. As the Guardian Weekly reports, Burma is almost a total black 
market with the government reduced to an army, police, and a few strutting 
politicians. In varying degrees, this is true of nearly all the Second and Third Worlds. 

What of the "First" World? In the social-democrat countries, the black market is 
smaller because the "white market" of legally accepted market transactions is larger, 
but the former is still guite prominent. Italy, for example, has a "problem" of a large 
part of its civil services which works officially from 7 A.M. to 2 P.M. working 
unofficially at various jobs the rest of the day earning "black" money. The 
Netherlands has a large black market in housing because of the high regulation of 
this industry. Denmark has a tax evasion movement so large that those in it seduced 
to politics have formed the second largest party. And these are only the grossest 
examples that the press has been able or willing to cover. Currency controls are 
evaded rampantly; in France, for example, everyone is assumed to have a large gold 
stash and trips to Switzerland for more than touring and skiing are commonplace. 

To really appreciate the extent of this counter-economic activity, one must view the 
relatively free "capitalist" economies. Let us look at the black and grey markets [5] in 
North America and remember this is the case of lowest activity in the world today. 

According to the American Internal Revenue Service, at least twenty million people 
belong in the "underground economy" of tax evaders using cash to avoid detections of 
transactions or barter exchange. Millions keep money in gold or in foreign accounts 
to avoid the hidden taxation of inflation. Millions of "illegal aliens" are employed, 
according to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Millions more deal or 
consume marijuana and other proscribed drugs, including laetrile and forbidden 
medical material. 

And there are all the practitioners of "victimless crimes." Besides drug use, there are 
prostitution, pornography, bootlegging, false identification papers, gambling, and 
proscribed sexual conduct between consenting adults. Regardless of "reform 
movements" to gain political acceptance of these acts, the populace has chosen to act 
now - and by so doing are creating a counter-economy. 

But it doesnt stop here. Since the 55 mph speed limit enacted federally in the U.S., 
most Americans have become counter-economic drivers. The trucking industry has 
developed CB communications to evade state enforcement of regulations. For 
independents who can make four runs at 75 mph rather than three runs at 55 mph, 
counter-economic driving is a guestion of survival. 

The ancient custom of smuggling thrives today from boatloads of marijuana and 
foreign appliances with high tariffs and truckloads of people from less- developed 
countries to the tourists stashing a little extra in their luggage and not reporting to 
customs agents. 

Nearly everyone engages in some sort of misrepresentation or misdirection on their 
tax forms, off-the-books payments for services, unreported trade with relatives and 
illegal sexual positions with their mates. 

To some extent, then, everybody is a counter-economist! And this is predictable from 
libertarian theory. Nearly every aspect of human action has statist legislation 
prohibiting, regulating or controlling it. These laws are so numerous that 
"Libertarian" Party which prevented any new legislation and briskly repealed ten or 
twenty laws a session would not have significantly repealed the State (let alone the 
mechanism itself!) for a millennium! [6] 

Obviously, the State is unable to obtain enforcement of its edicts. Yet the State 
continues. And if everyone is somewhat counter-economic, why hasn't the Counter- 
Economy overwhelmed the economy? 

Outside of North America we can add the effect of imperialism. The Soviet Union has 
received support from the more developed countries in the 1930's and large 
guantities of instruments of violence during World War II. Even today, "trade" heavily 
subsidized by non-repayable loans props up the Soviet and new Chinese regimes. This 
capital (or anti-capital, being destructive of value) flow, together with military aid, 
from both blocs maintains regimes in the rest of the globe. But that does not explain 
the North American case. 

What exists everywhere on Earth allowing the State to continue is the sanction of the 
victim. [7] Every victim of statism has internalized the State to some degree. The 
IRS's annual proclamation that the income tax depends on "voluntary compliance" is 
ironically true. Should the taxpayers completely cut off the blood supply, the vampire 
State would helplessly perish, its unpaid police and army deserting almost 
immediately, defanging the Monster. If everyone abandoned "legal tender" for gold 
and goods in contracts and other exchanges, it is doubtful that even taxation could 
sustain the modern State. [8] 

This is where the State's control of education and the information media, either 
directly or through ruling-class ownership, becomes crucial. In earlier days, the 
established priesthood served the function to sanctify the king and aristocracy, 
mystify the relations of oppression, and induce guilt in evaders and resisters. The 
disestablishment of religion has put this burden on the new intellectual class (what 
the Russians called the intelligentsia). Some intellectuals, holding truth as their 
highest value (as did earlier dissenting theologians and clerics), do work at clarifying 
rather than mystifying, but they are dismissed or reviled and kept away from State 
and foundation-controlled income. Thus is the phenomenon of dissidence and 
revisionism created; and thus is the attitude of anti-intellectualism generated among 
the populace who suspect or incompletely understand the function of the Court 

Note well how anarchist intellectuals are attacked and repressed under every State; 
and those arguing for an overthrow of the present ruling class - even only to replace 
it with another - are suppressed. Those who propose changes which eliminate some 
beneficiaries of the State and add others are often lauded by the benefiting elements 
of the Higher Circles and attacked by the potential losers. 

A common characteristic of most hardened black marketeers is their guilt. They wish 
to "make their bundle" and return to the "straight society." Bootleggers and hookers 
all long some day for re-acceptance in society - even when they form a supportive 
"sub-society" of outcasts. Yet there have been exceptions to this phenomenon of 
longing for acceptance: the religious dissenting communities of the 1700s, the 

political utopian communities of the 1800s, and most recently, the counter-culture of 
the hippies and New Left. What they had was a conviction that their sub-society was 
superior to the rest of society. The fearful reaction to themselves they generated in 
the rest of society was the fear they were correct. 

All of these examples of self-sustaining sub-societies failed for one overriding reason: 
ignorance of economics. No social binding, no mater how beautiful, can overcome the 
basic glue of society - division of labor. The anti-market commune defies the only 
enforceable law - the law of nature. The basic organizational structure of society 
(above the family) is not the commune (or tribe or extended tribe or State) but the 
agora. No matter how many wish communism to work and devote themselves to it, it 
will fail. They can hold back agorism indefinitely by great effort, but when they let go, 
the "flow" or "Invisible Hand" or "tides of history" or "profit incentive" or "doing what 
comes naturally" or "spontaneity" will carry society inexorably closer to the pure 

Why is there such resistance to eventual happiness? Psychologists have been dealing 
with that since they began their embryonic science. But we can at least give two 
broad answers when it comes to socioeconomic guestions: internalization of anti- 
principles (those seeming like principles but actually contrary to natural law) and the 
opposition of vested interests. 

Now we can see clearly what is needed to create a libertarian society. On the one 
hand we need the education of the libertarian activists and the consciousness-raising 
of counter-economists to libertarian understanding and mutual supportiveness. "We 
are right, we are better, we are surviving in a moral, consistent way and we are 
building a better society - of benefit to ourselves and others," our counter-economic 
"encounter groups" might affirm. 

Note well that libertarian activists who are not themselves full practicing counter- 
economists are unlikely to be convincing. "Libertarian" political candidates undercut 
everything they say (of value) by what they are doing; some candidates have even 
held jobs in taxing bureaus and defense departments! 

On the other hand, we must defend ourselves against the vested interests or at the 
very least lower their oppression as much as possible. If we eschew reformist activity 
as counter-productive, how will we achieve that? 

One way is to bring more and more people into the counter-economy and lower the 
plunder available to the State. But evasion isn't enough; how do we protect ourselves 
and even counter-attack? 

Slowly but steadily we will move to the free society turning more counter-economists 
onto libertarianism and more libertarians onto counter-economics, finally integrating 
theory and practice. The counter-economy will grow and spread to the next step we 
saw in our trip backward, with an ever-larger agorist sub-society embedded in the 
statist society. Some agorists may even condense into discernible districts and 
ghettos and predominate in islands or space colonies. At this point, the guestion of 
protection and defense will become important 

Using our agorist model (Chapter 2), we can see how the protection industry must 
evolve. Firstly, why do people engage in counter-economics with no protection? the 

pay-off for the risk they take is greater than their expected loss. This statement is 
true, of course, for all economic activity, but for counter-economics it requires special 

The fundamental principle of counter-economics is to trade risk for profit. [9] 

The higher the expected profit, the greater the risk taken. Note that if risk is lowered, 
a lot more would be attempted and accomplished - surely an indicator that a free 
society is wealthier than an unfree one. 

Risk may be lowered by increasing care, precautions, security (locks and stashes), 
and by trusting fewer persons of higher trustworthiness. The last indicates a high 
preference for dealing with fellow agorist and a strong economic incentive binding an 
agorist sub-society and an incentive to recruit or support recruitment. 

Counter-economic entrepreneurs have an incentive to provide better security devices, 
places of concealment, instructions to help evasion and screen potential customers 
and suppliers for other counter-economic entrepreneurs. And thus is the counter- 
economic protection industry born. 

As it grows, it may begin insuring against "bursts," lowering counter-economic risks 
further and accelerating counter-economic growth. Then it may provide lookouts and 
guarded areas of safekeeping with alarm systems and highly technological 
concealment mechanisms. Guards may be provided against real criminals (other than 
the State). Already many residential, business and even minority districts have 
private patrols, having given up on the State's alleged protection of property. 

Along the way the risk of contract-violation between counter-economic traders will be 
lowered by arbitration. Then the protection agencies will start providing contract 
enforcement between agorists, although the greatest "enforcer" in the early stages 
will be the State to which each can turn the other cone into. Yet that act would 
quickly result in one's expulsion from the sub-society; so an internal enforcement 
mechanism will be valued. 

In the final stages counter-economist transactions with statists will be enforceable by 
the protection agencies and the agorists protected against the criminality of the 
State. [10] 

At this point we have reached the final step before the achievement of a libertarian 
society. Society is divided between large agorist areas inviolate and statist sectors. 
And we stand on the brink of Revolution. 


[1] Micro and macro are terms from present Establishment economics. While 
Counter-Economics is part of agorism (until the State is gone), agorism includes both 
Counter-Economics in practice and libertarianism in theory. Since that theory 
includes an awareness of the consequences of large-scale Counter-Economic practice, 
I will use agorist in the macro sense and counter-economic in the micro sense. Since 

the division is inherently ambiguous, some overlap and interchangeability will occur. 

[2] "Counter-Economics" was formed the same way as "counter-culture;" it does not 
mean anti-economic science any more than counter-culture was anti-culture. 

[3] This volume, Counter-Economics (the book), has been begun and should be 
completed in 1981 and published in 1982 one way or the other. Market willing! 

o Note to Second Edition: The Market is not yet willing, but soon... 

[4] That class has been called the Ruling Class, Power Elite, or Conspiracy, depending 
on whether the analysis comes from a Marxist, Liberal, or Bircher background. The 
terms will be used interchangeably to show the commonality of the identification. 

[5] While some coercive acts are often lumped into the label "black market," such as 
murder and theft, the vast majority of this "organized crime" is perfectly legitimate to 
a libertarian, though occasionally unsavory. The Mafia, for example, is not black 
market but acts as government over some of the black market which collects 
protection money (taxes) from its victims and enforces its control with executions and 
beatings (law enforcement), and even conducts wars when its monopoly is 
threatened. These acts will be considered red market to differentiate them from the 
moral acts of the black market which will be discussed below. In short, the "black 
market" is anything non-violent prohibited by the State and carried on anyways. 

The "grey market" is used here to mean dealing in goods and services not themselves 
illegal but obtained or distributed in ways legislated against by The State. Much of 
what is called "white-collar crime" falls under this and is smiled upon by most of 

Where one draws the line between black and grey market depends largely on the 
state of consciousness of the society one is in. The red market is clearly separable. 
Murder is red market; defending oneself against a criminal (when the State forbids 
self-defense) - including a police officer - is black in New York City and grey in 
Orange County. 

[6] Thus an "L"P would perpetuate statism. In addition, and "L"P would preserve the 
ill-gotten gain of the ruling class and maintain the State's enforcement and execution. 

[7] An example of how this works may be helpful. Suppose I wished to receive and 
sell a contraband or evade a tax or violate a regulation. Let's say I can make 
$100,000 a transaction. 

Using government figures on criminal apprehension, always exaggerated in the 
State's favor simply because they cannot know how much we got away with, I find an 
apprehension rate of 20%. One may then find out the percentage of those cases that 
come for trial and the percentage of those that result in conviction even with a good 
lawyer. Let's say 25% make it to trial and 50% result in conviction. (The latter is high 
but we'll throw in the legal fees involved so that even a decision involving loss of legal 
costs but acguittal is still a "loss.") I therefore incur a 2.5% risk (.20 x .25 x .50 = 
0.025). This is high for most real cases. 

Suppose my maximum fine is $500,000 or five years in jail - or both. Excluding my 

counter-economic transactions (one certainly cannot count them when deciding 
whether or not to do them), I might make $20,000 a year so that I would lose another 
$100,000. It's very hard to ascribe a value to five years of incarceration, but at least 
in our present society it's not too much worse than other institutionalization (school, 
army, hospital) and at least the counter-economist won't be plagued with guilt and 

So I weigh 2.5% of $600,000 loss or $15,000 and five years against $100,000 gain! 
And I could easily insure myself for $14,000 (or less) to pay all costs and fines! In 
short, it works. 

[8] It probably should be noted explicitly that businesses could grow guite large in 
the counter-economy. Whether or not "wage workers" would exist instead of 
"independent contractors" for all steps of production is arguable, but this author feels 
that the whole concept of "worker-boss" is a holdover from feudalism and not, as 
Marx claims, fundamental to "capitalism." Of course, capital-statism is the opposite of 
what the libertarian advocates. 

Furthermore, even large businesses today could go partially counter-economic, 
leaving a portion in the "white market" to satisfy government agents and pay some 
modicum of taxes and report a token number of workers. The rest of the business 
would (and already often does) expand off the books with independent contractors 
who supply, service, and distribute the finished product. Nobody, no business, no 
worker, and no entrepreneur need be white market. 

Revolution: Our Strategy 

Our condition has been analyzed, our goal perceived, the mechanism has been 
spelled out and a set of pathways have been mapped out. Should we simply go 
counter-economic ourselves, educate ourselves in libertarianism and inform others by 
word and deed, we shall reach our libertarian society. Indeed, this is sufficient for 
most people and enough to be expected. No New Libertarian should ever berate 
libertarian counter-economists for not doing more. They are agorists and will get 
there in their own time. 

But even these simple agorists may wish to contribute to entrepreneurs specializing 
in accelerating the movement to the agorist society from statism. And others, 
perceiving rising inflation heading to economic collapse or gathering clouds of war, 
will want something done about it. Finally, the counter-attacks of the State which 
subvert the agorist sub-society and lure libertarians into false paths must be 
combatted. These tasks define the field for the New Libertarian activist. [1] 

Again, for those who wish only to live their lives as free as possible and associate with 
others like-minded, counter-economic libertarianism is sufficient. No more is needed. 

But for those who want to support in whatever way they can those heroic 
entrepreneurs who specialize in recruiting for the agora, deal with State-caused 
catastrophes, and combat statists within and without, a guide is needed to select 
those who are "doing something worthwhile" from those spinning their wheels and 
those actually counter-productive (i.e. counter-revolutionary) to achieving more 
freedom. And for those like this author, who burn for Liberty and wish to devote 
themselves to that life's work, a strategy is essential. What follows, then, is the New 
Libertarian Strategy. [2] 

The New Libertarian activist must keep in mind that actual defense against the State 
is impossible until the counter-economy has generated the syndicates of protection 
agencies sufficiently large to defend against the remnant of the State. This will occur 
only at the "phase transition" between the third and fourth steps leading back from 
our statism to agorism (Chapter 3). 

Each step from statism to agorism reguires a different strategy; tactics will differ 
even within each step. There are some rules which will apply in all stages. 

Under all circumstances, one recruits and educates. Given typically confused 
individual acguaintances who consider a counter-economic act, encourage them to do 
it. If they are intelligent enough and not likely to turn on you, explain risks involved 
and return expected. Most of all, educate them by your example to the extent you can 
let them know. 

All "Library Libertarians" you know, those who profess some theoretical variant of 
libertarianism but eschew practice, should be encouraged to practice what they 
preach. Scorn their inaction, praise their first halting steps towards counter- 
economics. Interact with them more and more as trust grows with their competence 
and experience. 

Those already in counter-economics whom you meet can be "let in on" the libertarian 
philosophy that you hold, that mysterious belief you hold which keeps you so happy 

and free of guilt. Drop it nonchalantly if they feign lack of interest: wax enthusiastic 
as they grow more curious and eager to learn. 

Self agorism by example and argument. Control and program your emotional 
reactions to exhibit hostility at statism and deviationism, and to exhibit enthusiasm 
and joy at agorist acts and the State's setbacks. Most of these tactics will come with 
routine but you can check yourself to polish a few things. 

Finally, co-ordinate your activities with other New Libertarian activists. At this point, 
we arrive at the need for group tactics and organization. 

Many worthy libertarians argue that the market structures of businesses, 
partnerships and joint-stock companies [3] provide all the organization necessary or 
desirable; save maybe for personal mating or socializing. In one sense they are 
correct in that all structures must be market-compatible or be inconsistent with 
agorism. In another sense, they are guilty of a lack of imagination and a concern of 
form over substance. 

In an agorist society, division of labor and self-respect of each worker-capitalist- 
entrepreneur will probably eliminate the traditional business organization - especially 
the corporate hierarchy, an imitation of the State and not the Market. Most 
companies will be associations of independent contractors, consultants, and other 
companies. Many may be just one entrepreneur and all his services, computers, 
suppliers and customers. This mode of operation is already around and growing in the 
freer segments of Western economies. 

Thus an association of entrepreneurs of liberty for the purpose of specializing, 
coordinating and delivering libertarian activities is no violation of the market and may 
well be optimal. The traditional name for a handling together of sovereign units for a 
goal and then disbanding is an alliance. Hence the basic organization for New 
Libertarian activists is the New Libertarian Alliance. [4] 

The organization of NLA (or NLAs) is simple and should avoid turning into a political 
organ or even an authoritarian organization. Rather than officers, what are needed 
are tacticians (local coordinators with competency in tactical planning) and 
strategists (regional coordinators with competency in strategic thinking). A New 
Libertarian Ally does not follow a tactician or strategist but rather "buys" their 
argument and expertise. Anyone offering a better plan can replace the previous 
planner. Tactics and strategy should be "bought and sold" by the Allies like any other 
commodity in consistent agorist fashion. 

Even though these labels are borrowed from military history and do correspond to a 
form of combat, never forget that actual physical confrontation with the State's 
enforcers must await the market's generation of protection agency syndicates of 
sufficient strength; all else is premature. [5] 

What is the global strategy, continental strategy, and local tactics for an NLA to 
optimally pursue? Again, let's look at the four steps from - or to - agora from Statism. 
The first three are actually rather artificial divisions; no abrupt change occurs from 
first to second to third. As will be shown, it is most probable that the transition from 
the third to fourth step will be guite sudden, though it is not reguired by the nature of 
the agora; rather, the convulsion will be caused by the nature of the State. In fact, all 

violence, unrest, instability and dislocations are caused by the State - never fomented 
by New Libertarians. 

Heed well, you who would be a paladin of Liberty: never initiate any act of violence 
regardless how likely a "libertarian" result may appear. To do so is to reduce yourself 
to a statist. There are no exceptions to this rule. Either you are fundamentally 
consistent or not. A New Libertarian is fundamentally consistent and one who is not 
fundamentally consistent is not a New Libertarian. [6] 

But using New Libertarian analysis, one can predict the likely outbreak of statist 
aggression and move to head it off by exposure or even defend or evacuate the 
victims. One can also predict the probable outcomes of deviations by libertarian 
groups and either head off the sell-outs and disasters or win respect for one's 
foresight and that of New Libertarianism from potential recruits. Let the State be the 
forest fire; the NLA are the smoke-eaters who know how it burns, how to firebreak, 
how the winds of change affect it, where the sparks may fly, and finally, how to 
extinguish it. 

With this in mind, let us label the steps to agora as four phases and outline the 
appropriate strategy for each. 

Phase 0: Zero-Density Agorist Society 

In this phase, most of human history, no agorists exist, only scattered libertarians or 
proto-libertarians thinking and practicing counter-economists. The moment someone 
reads this manifesto and wishes to apply it, we have moved to the next phase. All that 
can be done in Phase 0 is slow evolution of consciousness, hit and miss development, 
and a lot of frustrating dichotomies. 

Until you - the first agorist in a Phase 0 situation - have added to your number, your 
only strategy can be to increase your numbers, as well as live counter-economically 
yourself. The best form of organization is a Libertarian Alliance in which you steer the 
members from political activity (where they have blindly gone seeking relief from 
oppression) and focus on education, publicity, recruitment and perhaps some anti- 
political campaigning (i.e. "Vote For Nobody," "None of the Above", "Boycott the 
Ballot," "Don't Vote, It Only Encourages Them!" etc.) to publicize the libertarian 
alternative. An LA may take stands on issues agreed on, but insist on unanimity. Only 
the most clearly libertarian stands will be taken and you can always veto a 
deviationist stance. Always encourage tendencies towards "hard-core" (consistent) 
position and scorn "soft-core" (inconsistent) ones. 

Phase 1: Low-Density Agorist Society 

The first counter-economic libertarians appear in this phase and the first serious 
splits in the Libertarian movement occur. Since few libertarians are very consistent 
yet, deviationism will run rife and tend to overwhelm activism. "Get-Liberty-guick" 
schemes from anarchozionism (running away to a Promised Land of Liberty) to 
political opportunism will seduce the impatient and sway the incompletely informed. 
All will fail if for no other reason than Liberty grows individual by individual. Mass 
conversion is impossible. There is one exception - radicalization by statist attack 
against a collective. Even so, it reguires entrepreneurs of Liberty to have sufficiently 
informed the persecuted collective so that they lase coherently libertarian-ward 

rather than scatter randomly or worse, flow into out-of-power statism. These Crises of 
Statism are spontaneous and predictable - but cannot be caused by moral, consistent 

The strategy of the first New Libertarians is to combat anti-principles which 
strengthen the State and dissipate anarchist energy uselessly. The general strategy 
outlines previously applies; get libertarians into counter-economics and get the most 
active of the agorists to get counter-economists into libertarianism. 

The proto-New Libertarians may work within existing organizations and clubs of 
Libertarians as "radical caucuses," ginger groups, or as a "Libertarian Left" faction in 
general. An NLA is premature here because it is not yet self-sustaining. 

What can be successfully built is - under whatever label seems most conducive for 
recruitment - a Movement of the Libertarian Left. Such a Movement is itself a mixed 
bag of individuals of varying "hardness of core" but they are tending or moving 
towards the ideal of New Libertarianism. Even within MLL structure should be de- 
emphasized. The most New Libertarian will be the most competent to coordinate and 
plan; that is, those of highest understanding and practice of agorism and greatest 
zeal for action will naturally direct resources. Each MLLer, like each NL. ally, spends 
his or her own outsources and decides whether or not to accept a tactician or 
strategist's advice and planning, as any entrepreneur would do with any informed 
consultant. Some pseudo-political public trappings may be necessary to utilize public 
forums and media access; also, most people will not understand your market- 
organization unless you translate it in pseudo-political terminology and back again. 

At this point, in the latter stages of Phase 1 and with a functioning MLL large enough, 
these hard-core dedicated "cadre" can apply leverage to sway larger groups of semi- 
converted guasi-libertarians to actually block marginal actions by the State. This is a 
high-expenditure, "guick gain," but low long-range yield tactic and should be rare. (It 
will be covered later; basically, stave off war and mass extermination of libertarians.) 

Following all these activities, radicalizing the libertarians, and evolving the NLA. That 
is all one can accomplish. 

Phase 2: Mid-Density, Small Condensation Agorist Society 

At this point the statists take notice of agorism. While before libertarians could be 
manipulated by one ruling faction to the detriment of another (sort of anti-market 
"competition," played with ballots and bullets rather than innovation and pricing), 
they will start to be perceived as a a threat. Pogroms (mass arrests) may even occur, 
although that is unlikely. Remember, most agorists are embedded in the rest of 
society and associating with them are partially-converted libertarians and counter- 
economists. In order to reach this phase, the entire society has been contaminated by 
agorism to a degree. Thus it is now possible for the first "ghettos" or districts of 
agorists to appear and count on the sympathy of the rest of society to restrain the 
State from a mass attack. [7] 

These communities, whether above or underground, can now sustain the New 
Libertarian Alliance, NLA acts as spokesman for the agora with the statist society, 
using every chance to publicize the superiority of agorist living to statist inhabiting 
and perhaps argue for tolerance of those with "different ways." [8] 

In this phase, the agorist society is vulnerable to statist regression of the populace. 
Thus the agorists, whether visible or not, have a high incentive to at least maintain 
the present level of libertarian consciousness among the rest of the populace. This 
being done most expertly by the NLA (one way to define who the NLA is at this 
phase), the NLA has its sustenance and its mission. But in addition to "defending" the 
agorist sub-society, it can work towards accelerating the next evolutionary step. 

Phase 3: High-Density, Large Condensation, Agorist Society 

In this phase, the State moves into a series of terminal crises, somewhat analogous to 
the well-known Marxist scenario, but with different causes - in this case, real ones. 
Fortunately, the potential for damage has been drastically decreased by the sapping 
of the State's resources and corrosion of its authority by the growth of the Counter- 

In fact, as the resources of the economy approach eguality between the State and 
Agora, the State is pushed into crisis. Wars and rampant inflation with depressions 
and crack-ups become perpetual as the State attempts to redeem its authority. It may 
be possible to reverse its decline by corrupting the agora with deductive anti- 
principles, so the NLA's first task is clear: to maintain vigilance and purity of thought. 
In this phase, the NLA may no longer hold either label or much of its old form. The 
most motivated New Libertarians will move into the research and development supply 
for the budding agorist protection and arbitration agencies and lastly as directors of 
the protection company syndicates. 

The situation now approaches revolution but is still reversible. [9] Again the New 
Libertarians are in the forefront of maintaining and defending gains to this point, but 
looking ahead to the next phase. 

The NLA (now just a collective term for the most forward-looking elements) can 
accelerate the process by discovering and developing the optimal methods of 
protection and defense, both by word and deed, for their industry and 
entrepreneuring its innovations. 

At this phase transition between 3 and 4 we have the last unleashing of violence by 
the Ruling Class of the State to suppress those elements that would bring them to 
justice for all past state crimes. The State's intellectuals perceive that its authority 
has failed and all will be lost; things must be reversed now or never. The NLA must 
prevent premature awareness of this status or premature action on this awareness. 
This is the final strategic goal of the NLA. 

When the State unleashes its final wave of suppression - and is successfully resisted - 
this is the definition of Revolution. Once realization has occurred that the State no 
longer can plunder and pay-of its parasitical class, the enforcers will switch sides to 
those better able to pay them and the State will rapidly implode into a series of 
pockets of Statism in backward area - if any. [10] 

Phase 4: Agorist Society with Statist Impurities 

The collapse of the State leaves only mopping up operations. Since the insurance and 
protection companies see no State to defend against, the syndicate of allied 
protectors collapses into competition and the NLA - its support gone - dissolves. 

Statists apprehended pay restoration and if they live long enough to discharge their 
debts, are re-integrated as productive entrepreneurs (Their "training" comes 
automatically as they work off their debt.) 

We're home (Chapter 2)! New Libertarianism is taken for granted as the basis of 
ordinary life and we tackle the other problems facing mankind. 


[1] Many agorists such as Pyro Egon have challenged the New Libertarians on this 
point. As far as they are concerned, the manifesto this far is the entire program and 
any further "activism" is "movementism" and leads one ineluctably back towards 

[2] New Libertarian Strategy is the newsletter of the Movement of the Libertarian 
Left - not coincidentally. 

[3] But not a "corporation" which is a fictitious "individual" created by the State and 
endowed with privileges. Some privileges besides subsidies and tariffs are special tax 
rates, limited liability, exemption from regulation, licenses, and legal benefits in court 
disputes. True, they have some drawbacks but none compares to an unincorporated 
white-market business. 

[4] The first New Libertarian Alliance was formed, prematurely in many respects, by 
this author in 1974 from recruits from a raid on the "L"P, from other movement 
activists, and a few counter-economists. The market proved less than ready for a 
growth in this business and so the NLA to date has spent most of its energies towards 
building that market. 

Any band of New Libertarians can call themselves a New Libertarian Alliances 
without "official authorization;" most will surely wish to co-ordinate themselves with 
other NLA groups and try to agree on common strategy, though tactics may differ 
from different conditions of the Allies. 

[5] This mode of NLA organization worked well for the Long Beach chapter that kept 
it constantly in practice. Regional strategy was not fully "shaken down" by practice 
but no other NLA group maintained that high a level of committed Allies who were 
constantly developing and working that theory. 

As for armies, it should be noted that Nestor Makhno ran an army in fairly anarchist 
manner with a small core of officers and complete volunteers filling the ranks when 
needed or convinced of the need. He fought Reds and Whites successfully in the 
Ukraine 1918-20 until overwhelmed by weight of numbers of the victorious Red 
statists combining the full resources of a continent against him. 

[6] No membership or credentials is needed or desirable for the NLA. Of course, one 
may make a list of those with whom to gather and plan, and to whom to mail 

communications. But there is nothing sacred or special about such lists; they are 
merely one strategist or tactician's judgment. 

One cannot be purged from NLA. One is either a New Libertarian or not according to 
the evidence provided by one's acts; every other Ally must judge for themselves. All 
who accept you as a New Libertarian are in Alliance with you; those who reject you 
are not, though you may be in Alliance with others. 

[7] Premature appearance of agorist communities will lead to their suppression 
violently by the State. The NLA must defend those which can be saved when 
historical conditions are marginal and warn and evacuate those which are doomed. 

[8] It is still within the limits of New Libertarian morality to point out to one faction of 
the Higher Circles that the agorist existence benefits them ore than the other faction. 
While no statist can ever be aided in plunder and murder, and even allying with one 
statist against another consumes scarce resources for the outcome of merely trading 
oppressors, the New Libertarian can perceive that simply by existing and conducting 
usual business, the agorist activity is relatively more detrimental to one group of 
statists over another. 

A good rule of thumb to the tactic of playing off ruling groups is to make sure that no 
more resources are devoted to it than extra statements based in regular publication 
and media exposure for more important work.. .and private conversations, if one 
freguents those social circles. 

This tactic fails when the agorist society is perceived as too threatening; then all 
statist factions unite to save their skins. 

[9] Let's say one region is highly agorist and the rest more primitive. Resources may 
be transferred by the State to crush this premature and localized (thus vulnerable) 
agora. This applies to Phase 2 even more. 

[10] Some will argue that the State may collapse peacefully when the statists see the 
end approaching. If statists were so reasonable about not resorting to force because 
of market alternatives, they wouldn't be statists. Revolution is as inevitable as any 
human action can be. 

Action! Our Tactics 

The previous chapter discussed some tactics in passing. A few that have been found 
productive for radical libertarians and the MLL include infiltration of less radical 
groups and sparking splits by presenting alternatives; confrontation of coercion (or 
deviation) with visible protest and rejection; day to day personal salesmanship among 
friends; libertarian social groups such as supper clubs to exchange information, 
goods, and support and act as a proto-agora; and, of course, publication, public 
speaking, writing fiction with agorist messages [1], and educational activities in many 
forms: teacher, business consultant, entertainer, revisionist historian, agorist 
economist, etc. 

Successful tactics can only be discovered and used and passed on. Those who 
perceive sufficiently similar conditions in time and place to those of another where a 
tactic worked can use it. But it is all a risk; that is what activism is, a type of 
entrepreneurship, of guessing the market and supplying the demand. One can 
become better and better at making good guesses; that's what makes a successful 
entrepreneur. It's all in Human Action by Von Mises if you can apply it. 

To find out what has been tried and worked or failed, communication is necessary. If 
you have reached this page and agreed, and have a desire to support resistance or a 
burning need to resist coercion, you are ready for the MLL or NLA in existence, 
depending on the phase we are currently in (Chapter IV). Free yourself. Get active. 

What phase are we in? In October 1980 (first edition) most of the planet Earth is in 
Phase 0. The British Isles, Australia and Canada have moved substantially towards 
Phase 1; North America is in Phase 1. Only in the highest concentration of 
libertarians today, in Southern California, are the first signs of Phase 2. Assuming the 
situation is not reversed, the first few droplets of actual agorist societies - 
anarchovillages - are nucleating a viable sub-society. 

The Movement of the Libertarian Left exists only in California with a few scattered 
nuclei, agents and cells, in Alliance. The New Libertarian Alliance previously 
proclaimed was found premature and NLA remains in embryo (or nucleus) until 
objective conditions arrive to sustain it. 

The MLL has its work cut out for it. Externally, the world-wide collapse of the "Left" 
[2] has weakened restraints on the competitive segments of the State who are 
rushing towards war to re-mystify their restive victims with patriotism. Seizing the 
abandoned leadership of the anti-imperialism, anti-war and anti-conscription 
movement with a fresh, invigorating, ideological backing has become an opportunity 
for libertarians to become the Left. MLL has to compete with partyarch and 
monocentrist elements for this pre-eminence. [3] 

The lurching of American plutocracy from the brink of runaway inflation to 
depression and back again, in ever wilder swings, has panicked large numbers of 
complacent businessmen and raised their consciousness beyond conservative 
assurances of restoring stability to consider radical and even revolutionary 
alternatives. Only the Libertarian Left can win these entrepreneurs towards an 
"ideological," non-pragmatic position. Therein lie our opportunities. 

Internally, the "Libertarian" Party has reached a crisis with the 1980 American 

Presidential election. The premature unmasking of the statism inherent in partyarchy 
by Crane-Clark's blatant opportunism has managed to generated not only Left 
opposition but Right and Center opposition. [4] Major defections mount daily. [5] 

The failure of some reformist element to oust the Kochtopus by the Denver 
Convention (August 1981) and lull the unradicalized back in line would set the 
U.S.L.P. back dramatically and generate thousands of disillusioned recruits for the 
MLL and anti-party educational and counter-economic activities. 

With this manifesto as a manual and inspiration. New Libertarian strategists and 
tacticians can research, develop, correct and enact the New Libertarian Strategy and 
the tactics appropriate to the conditions met. Much work is needed but the projects 
have conseguences no mundane work can provide: an end to politics, to taxation, to 
conscription, to economic catastrophe, to involuntary poverty and to the mass murder 
of warfare in the final war - society against Our Enemy, The State. 

Counter-economics provides immediate gratification for those who abandon statist 
restraint. Libertarianism rewards the practitioner who follows it with more self- 
liberation and personal fulfillment than any alternative yet conceived. But only New 
Libertarianism offers reformation of society into a moral, working way of life without 
changing the nature of Man. Utopias may be discarded; at last we have a glimpse of 
how to remold society to fit Man rather than Man to fit some society. What more 
rewarding challenge could be offered? 

Should you now have chosen the New Libertarian path, you may wish to join us in our 
"Triple A" oath and battle cry, or something like it, and renew yourself with it 

"We witness to the efficacy of freedom and exult in the intricate beauty of complex 
voluntary exchange. We demand the right of every ego to maximize its value without 
limit save that of another ego. We proclaim the age of the Market unbound, the 
natural and proper condition for humanity, wealth in abundance, goals without end or 
limit, and self-determined meaning for all: Agora. 

"We challenge all who would bind us to show us cause; failing proof of our aggression 
we shatter our fetters. We bring to justice all who have aggressed against any, ever. 
We restore all who have suffered oppression to their rightful condition. And we 
destroy forever the Monster of the Ages, the pseudo-legitimized monopoly of 
coercion, from our minds and from our society, the protector of aggressors and 
thwarter of justice. That is, we smash the State: Anarchy. 

"We exert our wills to our personal limits restrained only by consistent morality. We 
struggle against anti-principles which would sap our wills and combat all who 
physically challenge us. We rest not nor waste resource until the State is smashed 
and humanity has reached its agorist home. Burning with unflagging desire for 
Justice now and Liberty forever, we win: Action! 

Agora, Anarchy, Action! 

Samuel Edward Konkin III 

October 12, 1980, Anarchovillage (Long Beach) 


[1] E.g., Alongside Night by J. Neil Schulman (Crown, 1979; Ace, 1982) and expected 

[2] The Left was originally proto-Libertarian, as revisionist historians such as Leonard 
Liggio point out. In the French Assembly, free marketeer Frederic Bastiat sat next to 
anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Even today Marxists refer to anarchists as "ultra- 
left" elements. The libertarian and Marxist elements were about egual at the close of 
the First Workingman's International. The Marxists and their sell-out imitators have 
been in ascendancy since the 1890's, finally losing belief in themselves with the New 
Left collapse, the invasion of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan by the U.S.S.R. and Viet 
Nam by China - the "impossible" war between two Marxist States. 

[3] Currently, "L"P"R"C and SLS respectively. 

[4] The "Right" of current libertarianism is fairly principled but many of the principles 
hewed to are anti-principles: gradualism, conservatism, reformism and minarchy. 
Reason magazine and its Frontlines newsletter are its main organs. The "Center" 
includes Murray Rothbard and his following, now organized in the LP "Radical" 
Caucus, which supports Clark "critically," i.e., externally, but not internally. The 
Rothbard Centrists have moved Left by abandoning monocentrism. 

[5] Murray Rothbard, as mentioned; the Southern California party Council Director, 
Dyanne Petersen, others informing this writer of their imminent defection should 
more "selling-out" occur. It will. 

o Special Note to Second Edition: It did. 

A steady trickle of LP defectors have added to the ranks of MLL month by month 
since then. At least one new Left Libertarian group, the Voluntaryists, have arisen to 
compete for the ex-partyarchs. And Murray Rothbard is organizing, at this time, a 
last-ditch showdown for control of the LP with the Kochtopus remnant at the LP 
presidential nominating convention to be held in September 1983 in New York City.